User talk:Robbie SWE

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search


2009-2011 2012-2014 2015-2017 2018
If you want an answer from me, please add new messages at the bottom of this page.

Is This Anything to Be Concerned About?[edit]

diff Chuck Entz (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

According to me and the Romanian community, it is something to be concerned about. I'll go through his translations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, you asked me to come here so I have :) I've corrected my edit – the additional meaning is in Hebrew. Is cross-lingual "see also" not customary? If it is, please re-revert your edits on старина and old chap; if it's not, I'll remove the reference to the quivalent English and Russian words from קשישא. Also, this form has no feminine counterpart, even though the template seems to demand one... I don't know how to fix that. Could you help? Thank you.

User:PalkiaX50, I invite you to this talk page as well. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I think the main problem is that you removed the Aramaic adjective section when you added the Hebrew section. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This was by accident; I meant to state that the word is only noun in Hebrew.
Well, Robbie SWE and User:PalkiaX50, you revert my edits but then I open a discussion and you don't reply? That's not very constructive..—⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I haven't had the time to respond because of my responsibilities in the real world. To answer your question – no, to the best of my knowledge, cross-lingual "See also" sections are not customary, and yours especially because they had nothing to do with the main lemma entry. I considered them translations and those do not belong under "See also". Chuck Entz also pointed out that you removed a valid section which is a big no-no. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
... and I replied it was simply done by accident. I understand, please see if it's all right now. Thanks.—⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Checked and corrected. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Why is the "Translations" section not used in non-English entries? And wouldn't be recommendable to note at least the English equivalents to the word? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
This is an English-language dictionary, so given that it is impractical for translations to be on all pages, they are kept on English pages. All foreign-language words have English "equivalents" given as their definition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Μετάknowledge. This indeed sounds reasonable in general, but look at the case in point (קשישא): the mere definition – "Affectionate term of address for a man" – does not fully convey the meaning of the word, not like a reference to the quivalent English terms old boy or old chap.


For improving russata —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Any time, but please look at my changes and try to do the same. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. -- Not logged in (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2019 (Eastern time)
Is my talk supposed to be red because it's not. -- Not logged in (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2019 (Eastern time)
It is as long as you haven't created a user profile. Take a look at our help pages and familiarise yourself with our templates. Have fun editing! --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

bleedin' obvious[edit]


I just noticed that you reverted my edits from yesterday with respect to bleedin' obvious. Would be interested in hearing what your reasoning was? In my view, the contraction should be an alternative spelling of 'bleeding obvious', as I indicated in my edit. On that basis I moved the content to bleeding obvious, which you also deleted. Thanks in advance. -- 10:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: On a sidenote, I'd appreciate it if you'd include the 'why' of edits in the 'Edit summary' instead of asking people to come here and ask you. If you're applying a particular Wiktionary guideline then that would be a great place to mention that, so that I can look it up myself instead of having to spend unnecessary time writing here and you spend unnecessary time answering. Cheers.

Thank you for contacting me! The rollback function does not permit us to include "why" we reverted an edit – it's a fast and efficient tool used by admins to go through the hundreds of edits done on a daily basis. If commenting were enabled, I would've explained it.
When it comes to bleedin' obvious, it had an actual quote from Fawlty Towers. You can't alter a quote to make it fit what might be a "more correct" form of a set phrase – that's the reason why I reverted your edit and also why I deleted the other form. On the other hand, I have no opposition to you recreating bleeding obvious as long as you add real quotes and mention the alternative form bleedin' obvious. As an alternative, you can also follow the example set by for cryin' out loud. Let me know if you need additional guidance. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. The spelling in the quote is not authoritative (only a primary source for the script would be). Here, the same quote is spelled without a contraction, for example. Google has almost 30 million results for the standard spelling, and 245,000 for the nonstandard spelling (less than 1% in comparison). When searching specifically for the Fawlty Towers quote, the standard spelling returns 22,200 results, the nonstandard spelling 13,700. See also from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious. Seeing as it's taken from a TV programme in which the expression was spoken, not written, the spelling of the expression in the entry here should reflect the standard spelling, in my opinion, in the same way that the example you cited (for cryin' out loud) is not the main entry for for crying out loud. Since I had created bleeding obvious with the main-entry content in the same way that for crying out loud has the main-entry content, and used a template in the entry for the nonstandard spelling to link the main entry, I fail to see how this is any different from for cryin' out loud. I've recreated the new entry and moved the content there in addition to providing an additional quote. -- 20:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Nicely done! Thank you for readding the information and for following our guidelines. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank you for correcting the IPA formatting on Middle English "seen!"

VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Any time ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Your rollback to this entry is in error, and so is the definition you restored. What should I do? 19:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing, because quotes confirm the current definition. If you have an additional definition – with supporting sources and quotes – you are more than welcome to also add it too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't intend to do "absolutely nothing." I intend to restore the changes, for the following reasons.
  • Of the quotations previously included, no clear definition follows from the Berdahl quote, and the definition provided did not specifically follow from the Meyers quote either.
  • OED gives 1843 as the earliest recorded use. In that year I found this source, in the sense of the first definition that I added. It's not easily quoted, but that does not invalidate the definition.
  • Berdahl's use of the term derives from Konrad, and Konrad made his meaning clear. 23:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't oppose those definitions, but I have no reason to question the first definition which was added by the original creator of the article and a trusted contributor. I'll let @Equinox chime in so hopefully we'll be able to find some common ground. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Challenging a cited definition requires RFV. Robbie, you should preferably have restored the deleted sense or created an RFV on behalf of this rude IP address. For now I'm going to restore it as not properly challenged. Whether his/her new senses are remotely okay I don't know either, but I have other things to do. Thanks for the heads up. Equinox 02:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I did restore it only to have the anon revert my changes. Needless to say, I was mildly annoyed but I'll keep an eye on this entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

One of your rollbacks is in error.[edit]

This one. Sorry it took so long for me to notice, I haven't usually edited while logged out until recently. 22:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the clavichord was developed in the early 14th century, almost four centuries before the piano. The restored statement that the harpsichord and the clavichord predate the piano is therefore correct. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You're right, but that's not why I removed the clavichord. Like the piano, but unlike the harpsichord, the clavichord is capable of making gradual changes in dynamics, even if only within a small range due to its overall quietness. 23:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, I feel that we're nitpicking and we are after all a dictionary. If you still feel strongly about it, I encourage you to delete it again and I promise not to revert it this time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


It wasn't particularly obvious, but all of the edits by this IP were deliberate hoaxes. They basically took random characters and random languages, and mixed and matched them. For instance, at the Thai letter , they said it was obsolete in Thai, but still used by Chewa. As far as I know, it's still used in Thai, and Chewa is an African language. Then there was "ധ⃪", which is the Malayalam letter with some diacritic that I don't recognize- probably from another script. That entry first had a Konkani header, which is plausible- Malayalam is one of the scripts it uses. Then it was changed to Lingala, a Bantu language from Africa, and finally they settled on Pileni, which is a Polynesian language. The part about it being transliterated as s' is wrong- it's d̪ʱ. Then there's ʺ, which is used in transliteration of Cyrillic. First they added a translingual sense for 'A ʺpaoī, ʺ, used in several Polynesian languages.' I haven't been able to find any reference to paoī, but I don't think it means anything, and I've never heard of a Polynesian language that uses anything of the sort. Then they added a section for Saho, which is another African language, and used the language code sah, which is the code for Yakut, which is a Northern Turkic language.

The last one is the only one that you might have been expected to spot: the language categories at the bottom didn't match the language header at all, as you can see here. Not that I'm complaining, since you catch just as much vandalism as I do (probably more). The only reason I caught it was because they hard-coded their "Pileni letters" category instead of using {{auto cat}} and I was going to fix it for them- that, and I was wondering why I had never heard of a Pileni script.

I just thought I'd share this with you so you'd have a better chance of catching them if they try it again. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz; Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not at all familiar with those languages, so I felt that I wasn't in the position to question the validity of the edits. But now I know and will keep an eye on it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


I've taken these variant forms from the Romanian page. I myself have met the word 'păsulă' in my studies. Michael D. Lawrence (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't use proper formatting and you also deleted the qualifier "rare" for fasolă. If these forms are attested, readd them but please use correct formatting the second time around. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


Hallo Robbie, you made the last revert on that page, so I contact you. The given form "să cumpăre" for the subjunctive, 3rd person, is in conflict with "să cumpere" on the romanian wiktionary. A search on that wiktionary (and elsewhere) seems to indicate, that "să cumpere" is the right form. I don't know it. Can you resolve the problem? Best regards, --Griot (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, I fixed the subjunctive and I double-checked the form on DEX. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Robbie. I had the sense of the definition on this page that you "rolled back" from Merriam Webster, which gives for illustrious: "notably or brilliantly outstanding because of dignity or achievements or actions". I feel that the sense of being exceptional or outstanding is more inherent, and therefore more basic than that of being admired, distinguished, or respected. Additionally, the first sense seems to be a prerequisite to the other, which is an action of an observer to the subject's being exceptional or outstanding. Indeed, this is why I placed this definition before the one currently existing on the page. Additionally, i thing it important to retain the sense of brilliance or splendor in the definition, as it carries forward the meaning of the root lustrō forward through the etymology. Would you not say that the subject which is characterized as being illustrious is one which evokes an image or feeling of brilliance or brightness in the mind's eye of an observer? What do you think? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I disagree – your changes only complicated a comprehensive definition which already conveys a similar meaning. To be completely honest with you, I rolled it back because you were trying to make it fit your changes at insignis. Please don't drag other lemmas into your work with insignis. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
While it is true that I was brought to this page by my trying to refine the insignis page as per the recommendations of "surjection", my effort here was based on what I conceive to be a shortcoming in the existing definition, rather than upon on attempt to make this definition "fit" with that page. Again, the sense that I wanted to convey is from Merriam Webster, and is readily available online, and I have difficulty in understanding how you can deny the logic I have related above. I will bow to your authority, however, as you are much more invested in Wiktionary than I am...
Sorry if I have caused you any anguish. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I haven't lost any sleep over it, I assure you. I dislike superfluity and even if you have backup in the form of Merriam Webster, the extra definition was unnecessary and served no other purpose than to align it with the definitions at insignis. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I'm glad that you haven't lost sleep...but the aggressive tenor of your responses seem to indicate that a certain amount of anguish may have been caused you. Please be assured that I am not attempting to attack either your intelligence or your judgement, or to be some kind of disruptive 'smart-ass', so you needn't adopt a defensive posture with respect to me. Avoiding the development of feelings of defensiveness is certainly required if one is to "participate in the spirit of collegiality" that you have spoken of elsewhere. My purpose here was precisely to recognize and delineate the difference between the senses of the words distinctive and distinguished, both of which I believe to be encompassed by the meaning of both the English illustrious and the Latin insignis as well. The first sense is, of course, causative of the second; a thing can only become distinguished by its first being distinctive. That is why I think that the sense of distinctive is the more basic (or, "fundamental", as I have said on the insignis page) sense of both of these lemmas. The existing definition of illustrious only includes the sense rendered by distinguished, as a quick check of the Wiktionary definitions of illustrious and distinguished will clearly show. By including the other definition, I was attempting to include the causative and more fundamental sense of distinctive as well, as the Merriam Webster definition does, that's all. Do you follow my reasoning? By that reasoning, I deny having introduced superfluity into the article, but as I say, this is your project and I must abide by your wishes.
Dude/Dudette, in all honesty if you think that is aggressive, you haven't seen me when I'm really angry. I was trying to be to the point – I apologise if it came off as anguished or aggressive, it wasn't my intention at all. Nonetheless, I'm still not seeing eye to eye with you on this one – as I said before, the definition is fine as it is and the sense you want to add only seems like overkill to me. If you want a second opinion, you can try to start a discussion about this in the Tea Room or the entry's discussion page. PS: please sign your posts using the signature button. On another note, why do you keep using different IPs? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "dude" is correct...I am a fellow from Massachusetts in the U.S. Thanks for the apology and clarification. You are certainly right in noting that the instant definition is fine as it is; I only diverge from you in my thinking that it is incomplete, and so might benefit from the addition. The effort of a discussion, while perhaps being warranted, exceeds the attention that I myself am willing to devote to this point. I will leave the matter to you; should you change your mind upon reflection, then tweak my intended addition as you see fit and undo your rollback. Should you not, then that's fine too. The reason for the varying IPs is that I am in "building services", and I use different computers, depending upon which office of my company I am working in at a given time or on a given day. Thanks. If you would like to give me your opinion and suggestions regarding insignis, even if only to say "man, that's crap", then I would appreciate the input. Thanks more.

Rollback on wear and tear[edit]

Hello. I would like to know the reason for this roll back: .

Thanks in advance. ——Chanc20190325 (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have several reasons: 1) bad formatting, 2) the wording was somewhat off – it wasn't as precise as it could be and would potentially confuse users less well-versed in the English language, 3) "wear and tear" is mainly a state not so much a process, 4) the sense is pretty much already covered in the existing definition, and 5) your contributions are starting to reek of a biased POV (thinking of this) – you seem to have an agenda in reference, to among other things, "aging". Please respect Wiktionary guidelines and maintain a NPOV. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explaination. But the bad formatting can be fixed (see: W:WP:IMPROVEIT), and if one definition confuses users, they can refer to the other, existing definition. Maybe, I should have placed that edit on “to wear out” (the process equivalent). And circumcision on either gender being genital mutilation is a fact, not a biassed, subjective opinion. But thanks for the reply. ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
You referenced a biased source – you should be grateful that you weren't blocked on sight. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
But I have not done any harm and I have not promoted any company or organisation. If I have promoted anything, it is health and physical integrity. And I have referenced 3 sources. Alright, Foreskin.Life is maybe a bit biassed (realized it now), but has their own scientific reference section at the bottom of the page. They include sources such as . ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which sources you provide if your sole purpose is to deviate from the current quite technical description, to a more subjective definition of a medical procedure. I hope you are aware that in some cases, strictly for men, circumcision is a medical necessity. They can't lead a healthy life without it. You put yourself on my radar and I'll keep a close eye on your edits. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with one of the original points: rephrasing a definition in different terminology doesn't make it a different definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
“I'll keep a close eye on your edits.” – Thank you for your attention.
“in some cases, strictly for men, circumcision is a medical necessity. They can't lead a healthy life without it.” – Didn't expect to hear that from a scandinavian.  
Circumcision is purely evil. It is medieval sexual mass-slavery. And in USA, big pharma and cosmetics massively profit from it. There are nearly always better alternatives compared to irreversibly slicing off 90% of the errogenous tissue and >20000 nerve endings off unconsenting infants. But these ways are unknown to the general public because many doctors don't speak about it, as much as they don't speak about possible complications, because of how massively profitable this knowledge gap caused by taboo-topics is. If an adult man consentfully wishes to get circumcised, it is absolutely fine (although it is extremely rare. Rare for good reasons.). But not for defenseless children. ––Chanc20190325 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

**Stunned** if I see any of this tinfoil hat crap on my talk page or on Wiktionary ever again, it will be deleted and you will most likely be blocked either by me or a fellow admin. You are pushing an agenda which is not permitted on Wiktionary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


You reverted the edit on mahatofoka where it had been changed from noun to adjective. The translation, "disgusting", is surely an adjective and not a noun? In the Malagasy Wiktionary, which on the other hand is maintained mainly by bots, it is listed as an adjective (mpamaritra). 20:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If you type in "mahatofoka" to the search bar on this site: it will say "Sokajin-teny mpamaritra" and "Famaritana anglisy disgusting, distasteful [Hallanger 1973]". This also suggests that it's probably an adjective. 20:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
There's more to changing the part of speech than just changing the header. You would need to change the headword template as well- the way you did it left it in Category:Malagasy nouns. You also have to realize that there are vandals who go around randomly changing headers just to cause trouble, so he may have mistaken your edit for something like that, since it left the entry broken. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Now I changed both. Is it now OK and if not, why? 07:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Chuck summed it up pretty well. The diff only showed the templates in m browser, not the sense itself so I didn't realise that there was a discrepancy. I apologise for the rollback. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I do think your rollback was in error[edit]

If you think voracious, -vore (as in herbivore), and -vorous (as in carnivorous) are not descendants of the Latin voro, then you need to correct several other pages, including the pages for voracious, vorus, and various other declensions of voro, most of which reference the Latin oro as the origin of -vore, -vorous, and/or voracious. You also need to have a very good explanation for doing so, since my explanation for making the edits is rather obvious.

Secondly, there is not a single English descendant of voro listed on the voro page, so I suggest you think up some examples of descendants and add them rather than removing the only examples and not having a good reason to do so, since there obviously are examples, and I already listed a few.

While you might argue that -vore comes from a different declension, like vorus, the reality is that voro is the root, and vorus comes from voro.-- 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to differentiate between descendants of the verb and descendants of the suffix. Voracious is the descendant of vorāx (from vorō) – not the suffix -vorus. The same goes for your other contributions – the suffixes -vore and -vorous belong at -vorus, no at vorāx or vorō. I know that all roads lead to Rome, or in this case vorō, but if we don't apply some rigour around here we would have chaotic descendants sections. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact remains that Voro is the root of all three, and the proper response for an editor who is knowledgeable in such matters is to correct the edit, not remove it. Voracious, -vore and -vorous all come from voro, whether or not there is another declension of voro in between. I would appreciate it if you would make the necessary changes, not roll them back. Perhaps I and others might learn something from you that way, rather than you making it more difficult for people to learn the origins of these words. A person would look at the edits you made, and if they did not know better, would assume that there isn't a word in the English language that is descended from voro, which is obviously incorrect.
It would be much more helpful to have something like this: Voracious - Etymology - From Latin vorāx, from vorō (“I devour”). as there is in the entry for voracious, but in reverse, i.e. Voro - descendants - English - Voracious, from Latin Vorax so and so declension of Voro
Ask yourself, "It might be easiest to roll it back, but is it right, and is it best?-- 18:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Please spare me the lecture dear anon – as an administrator we rarely have time to explain our reasoning behind every little revert. Your suggestion is not how things work around here and as far as I know, we don't have a direct English descendant of Latin vorō. Saying that there is would be misleading at best. However, I'll take a look at the entries when I have more time on my hands to see if there's anything I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
To understand why that's not practical, you have to do some math: Special:RecentChanges has over a thousand edits every day that need patrolling. Robbie was active today (my timezone) for less than 2 hours. That comes out to maybe 6 seconds to spend on each edit, on average (you learn quickly which ones to concentrate on). Out of those thousand edits, 10 required action. If he only had those 10 edits to work on, that would come out to about 10 minutes per edit- but there's the matter of those other thousand edits.
Mind you, these edits aren't all English. Yours was Latin. Robbie is highly fluent in at least 3 languages, and pretty good at several others, but none of us can spot even basic errors in all of them. We do the best we can, but it takes time, and we have to make lots of judgment calls. It would be nice to be able to spend the time needed to properly fix everything instead of reverting, but we're all volunteers and we have lots of other demands on our time. I hope you understand. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Civil Definition[edit]

Defining civil as naturally good is opinionated. Your revert of my change restore that previous position. If I would define anything else as "naturally good", it would be found to be opinionated. We cannot make moral judgment when defining. Please explain your action. NinjaAccountant (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not opinionated as long as it belongs to a specific domain, in this case theology. If people use it in that strict sense and it is labelled that way, you can't just delete it. I will revert you changes, again. If you feel strongly about it, take it up in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Based on the absence from other dictionaries of this definition, I will appeal to the tea room. NinjaAccountant (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


On worthy you've reverted my addition regarding "also worthly". This is in error though; I've re-added the "also" section.

Not how the template works - only words that are almost identical are added, e.g. som. Your change will be reverted again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

affirmative action[edit]

you need to support your point of view instead just accusing people of pushing theirs

do you have any argument or evidence?

do you have an explanation of why this definition is not the most accurate and concise? maybe stick to your own language and stop trying to brainwash people.

it seems you have a real problem with that —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Buddy, the only problem here is you and I'm apparently not the only one who thinks so. You don't care about our guidelines and you spread your biased vitriol like there's no tomorrow. I'm gonna give you a break cause the heatwave hitting the East Coast right now might be getting you all wound up for nothing. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:List of portmanteaux[edit]

Hey Robbie, I was wondering why you undid my edit and deleted two portmanteaux from the list? I didn't see any explanation for this in the page's history description. Now that I see you're an admin I figure there's got to be a reason, so clarification would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You reverted another fellow admin's edits without providing any reason. That's pretty much why I reverted your changes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, reasonable. Chuck hadn't provided a reason for the initial deletion (and I also hadn't realized they were an admin), so I undid the edit then wrote on their talk page asking why they did so. Although, I suppose from the article's perspective I now realize I did basically the exact same thing. Would it be alright to undo your edit and provide a brief description that it had been deleted without explanation then? Thanks! 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Did you mean to rollback all my edits? Chuck only deleted two portmanteaux, but it appears that you also rolled back my addition of another entry to the list and my edit fixing the alphabetical order. 2601:1C1:8A00:8F07:B185:2248:C7B3:CDE7 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I have no problem with your reverts, but if Chuck thinks otherwise, better talk to him about it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not following up on this: I haven't had the time or energy to really think this through. My original problem was with using links to Wikipedia to get around adding entries that probably would be unsuitable for Wiktionary entries. After looking at the body of material already there, however, it seems like this is a more widespread issue with lack of clarity in the philosophy behind the appendix as a whole. I'll try to figure out the best way to bring this up at the Beer parlour. Until that discussion takes place, I'm not going to revert anything there except obvious vandalism. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Robbie. Will you please give what might have been the rationale for the recent rollbacks of the definitions which I added to these terms (I assume here that the rollback was performed by a bot)? The extant definitions appear to be quite specific and narrow, and I wanted to provide a definition with a broader meaning. I am trying to develop a sense for what Wiktionary is looking for. Thanks in advance. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

We're back here again – your additions were pleonasms and you also placed them before every other meaning. IMO, it gave Wiktionary no added value. I'm seriously growing tired of this kind of edits and you're really pushing it with your other contributions too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
They strike me as more vague analyses of the other definitions than actual definitions in their own right. I don't really see the need for meta-analysis in a descriptive dictionary- it's basically a step toward putting a definition in every entry that says "(more broadly) some sort of meaning." Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry if what I provided seemed vague or overly wordy. I came to this page not intending to edit. Rather, in searching for what I felt the problem was with the opinion of an interviewee on an NPR radio program, I finally realized that said opinion smacked of fetishism. Upon checking the definitions here on Wiktionary, though, I felt that those provided were all rather specific aspects of the meaning of the word. For instance: with (1) fetishism does not necessarily ascribe magical powers (though it certainly can) to its object; (2) describes a particular type of fetishism (sexual fetishism); and (3), while getting more to the core of what fetishism is, erringly leads one to believe that it must involve an obsession, which it must not. Rather than being always an obsession, fetishism appears always to be more of a veneration (I believe that I used the word reverence, but I think veneration better), marked particularly by irrationality and extravagance in the truest sense of the word: a wandering beyond what is reasonable. These are the characteristics of fetishism in every case: whether it is sexual, non-sexual, obsessive, non-obsessive, or otherwise. That is what I wanted to convey in the definition that I wrote. As such, my defense of my added definition would be that it was, indeed, substantially different and more elemental than those extant on the page. As for why I placed it first: though I in no way claim to be a lexicographer, I think it axiomatic that the broadest and most "elemental" definitions for a particular term should have primacy of position, with the more specific definitions following. Do you not agree? I agree that I need not have written "most broadly", but only did so in an attempt to convey the reason for my edit. Please, Robbie, do not be harsh with me. I mean no harm, and am only trying to help improve Wiktionary, which I find a very useful tool, as I can... I will try to restrain myself in future should I find fault with the offerings here, though it is hard to do so when the "Edit" button is so easy to click on with the mouse!

Inclusion policy[edit]

FYI, our inclusion policy is WT:CFI. Just for your reference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Thrilling read (not the first time I've come across it, though) – still don't think that the entry I nominated for deletion should be on here and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Respectfully Dan, unless you want to come across as a bully – give it a rest. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I cannot compel you to make RFD nomination that make sense and pertain to WT:CFI. It is up to you to up your game. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I and several other contributors think it is a good idea to discuss issues that are controversial or at least question the policies we have enforced. Last I checked Wiktionary is a community where we have the freedom to discuss issues that are perceived as problematic. To restrict that freedom is in my book unacceptable and surely against the very policies you so fervidly uphold. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The nomination you made was not terms in CFI, and did not even suggest that it is a proposal for CFI override. If your say that something is "against the very policies you so fervidly uphold", you should reference the specific policy. CFI overrides are an option, and I have been supporting a range of CFI overrides, e.g. translation hubs years before they became a tentative policy.
I would not write to your talk page because of the single nomination. Rather, I see a pattern of bad nominations.
For reference, the nomination said "I don't even know where to start. Clipping?" Where is there a rationale for CFI override? If you do not know where to start, you probably should not be starting anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I provided a more comprehensive rational the second day and apologised for not doing so in the first place. You are not judge, jury and executioner and I will not indulge this conversation any further. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Chuck Entz (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I've taken it to Meta. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Abuse filters[edit]

Hi. I seem to be running in to an edit filter that is stopping me from updating redirects; is there anything you can do to help? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The edit filter is designed to stop new accounts from doing too many edits at once. Vandals create new accounts and try to do as much as they can before they're blocked, so this is very effective at limiting the damage. Most legitimate new editors take longer to do each edit, so the collateral damage is relatively low- but obviously not zero.
It's not the type of edits that's causing the problem, but the fact that you're doing them too close together. If you intersperse them with more time-consuming edits, you should be fine. Before long you'll reach the point where the filter won't consider you a new account any more, and it will leave you alone. I hope you understand. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: *daniskaz[edit]

Don't most Wiktionary reconstruction entries start with the language the page is in, if said language appears? I'm not trying to be mad or anything, i'm just noticing a trend in reconstruction entries. Starbeam2 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that we were going after alphabetical order. That some entries aren't following that rule is probably because editors were sloppy. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Huh. I never noticed. I'll keep it in mind. Starbeam2 (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Starbeam2, Robbie SWE The right order is found at WT:AGEM. Why it is that way, I am not entirely certain, but that is the standard order. It is not alphabetical per se. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Rollback and blocking[edit]

Why did you block the page Transnistria by rolling back constructive edits without discussion? 17:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Cause the edit was overly long for a dictionary, counter-productive and biased. Labelling it as the Romanian name for the autonomous territory was just ridiculous. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you a great specialist in English terminology used for the geographical, historical and political contexts of Eastern Europe? Then I ask you to explain what is ridiculous in this when it is an obvious fact. Politically biased is an attempt to mix the terms Pridnestrovie (the state and region that exists today) and Transnistria (the historical WWII term, today it is not officially used anywhere). Long? Correct, and do not engage in an unconstructive war of edits by abusing moderator functions. 18:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, two admins irrespective of each other thought the edit was nonconstructive. You don't have to be an expert to make an edit, but you have to understand that this is a dictionary which documents actual usage – it's not proscriptive and definitely not here to right perceived wrongs of history. If Transnistria is used in a specific way, it is our duty to document it. And that's all I'm going to comment in the matter. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, if there is a dictatorship of irresponsible and biased moderators who do not consider it necessary to enter into a dialogue and justify their actions, then I simply have nothing to do here. You can block my subnet forever. 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand why you don't like a name from your colonial past derived from the idea of being across the river from someplace else. I'm sure the lack of support from the rest of the world for your region's sovereignty is galling to you. I get that. However, Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary, and "Transnistria" is widely used and has been used for decades in English. That may change, but until then, we have to use that name in our entries. Also Wiktionary does not and cannot have an opinion. I'm sure our definitions in these entries could use some tinkering to make them more neutral, but that's not what you were trying to do.
Your intentions were crystal clear from the fact that you removed all mention of "Transnistria" from every entry you edited except Transnistria itself, and by the fact that you labeled my rollback as vandalism. My experience is that labeling edits in content disputes as vandalism is a sure sign of a battleground mentality, an attempt to gain the upper hand by discrediting your opponents. Robbie was reluctant to discuss this because his Romanian background gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. I don't have that problem. I haven't really formed an opinion because I was mostly unaware of the conflict until this came up.
I reverted your edit because it was an obvious attempt to slant the entry toward one side in a dispute, and the wording was rather poor, too. I can't speak to usage in Romanian, but in English it's not colloquial, and no one cares enough about the region to be abusive when discussing it.
You're in the center of the conflict, so for you its an important issue and you're surrounded by people with strong opinions. English-speaking countries, however, are far removed and mostly unaware. The main problem your side in the conflict has isn't bias and hostility, but apathy: for most of the world, your region (whatever it's called) is a tiny spot on the map that's too far away to do anything about. The sooner you accept that, the better you'll be in advocating for your cause (not that you should be advocating anything here). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Please undo your reversions of my edits to mater, frater and Pisces. They are legitimate doublets, as pater is with father. 00:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that because they are not doublets. Look through Appendix:Romance doublets - these are doublets, the ones you added aren't. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's right; frater and brother derive from the same Indo-European word, so frater as a loanword becomes a doublet of brother in English. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If we start going back to reconstructed languages then our entries will be completely packed with doublets. We have to draw a line somewhere and I find it only logical to draw the line at attested languages, such as Latin, Greek, German etc. If it's worth discussing, we might just want to open a discussion at the Beer Parlour. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, there will not be very many more doublets that way at all: my understanding (which may be faulty - IANALinguist) is that a doublet is an exact etymological match (inherited from the exact same word, with no non-phonological changes like affixation along the way) of a 'native' word in a given language which is borrowed into that same language, as with the English borrowed term frater (non-native exact cognate) and English brother (native), or host (non-native exact cognate) and guest (native). That's pretty unusual actually: obviously exact cognates are common, but an exact cognate of a term in a given language being borrowed into that language is relatively rare - and in fact especially rare in the case of PIE-doublets. After all, inheritances that were unchanged (excepting sound changes) all the way from PIE are hard to find to begin with; finding the same PIE word unchanged in two languages and one then being borrowed into the other is particularly rare. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know I've never come across any entry where the doublet was inherited from a proto-language, and that makes sense to me. I also understand your point of view but I still think that a community discussion is worth having before we apply this standard to doublets. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Mnemosientje; see Appendix:English doublets § Proto-Indo-European. Canonicalization (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Well I'll be damned – it's the first time I've seen any of these. Do we usually add the doublets in the etymology sections of each term or are they only added in this appendix? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thicc rollback[edit]

Hi, I hope you’re having a great day. believe your rollback was in error. Please bring my improvement to the thicc page and protect it. Thanks. Gardensk (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Not gonna do that because the meaning you wanted to add already exists at the main entry which is thick. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Re disruptive editing[edit]

Or maybe you should bother to actually understand the sense I'm trying to add? The term "literary language" can either refer to a specific variety of a language that happens to be used in writing, or to a language that has a literary tradition. I'm not gonna discuss this, I have better things to do, but it would be nice if you could reconsider this definition.

Same goes for "standard language". The term can either mean "language that has a standardised form" or "a standard variety of language". So English is a standard language because it has multiple standard varieties, for example: Standard American English, Standard British English etc. You can just open the Wikipedia entry for "standard language" or whatever. 11:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussing problematic issues is what you're encouraged to do – your changes seem like rewordings and I strongly suspect that no one who looks up the definitions will understand them any better thanks to your edits. Reduplicating existing translations into new sections doesn't help your case either. I encouraged you to go through the proper channels if you thought that I was wrong and you chose to undo my comment on your talk page. Needless to say, you're not doing yourself any favours by doing that. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay. But please remove those Polish translations. They're not correct for the sense you're trying to put them in. 16:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


It's not clear why you chose to single handedly "remove" this update to the kime page without any justification aside from "talk to me". It's better to research topics and use the Talk:kime page instead of bluntly removing and then asking for comments. Please be more considerate and thanks for your wiktionary editorial service. 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

My reason for reverting was explained pretty well by SemperBlotto. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: Reverted edits[edit]

Hello, I believe that your editing is disadvantageous to users' comprehension of the terms. Why are you insisting on deleting sourced additions of distinct senses? Please kindly explain this to me. Is there some aspect that should be explained to you, if the definitions are perhaps not clear enough? No one else has objected to these edits. 19:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your definitions are perfectly clear, but they provide in my opinion no added value to the existing senses. Around here we seek community input in such problematic situations, that is, if we're serious about our participation. Get with the program or leave it be. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by saying 'no added value"? Do you mean that Wiktionary shouldn't include less common senses of specialized terms, or is it just that you don't understand these senses, can't see how they're distinct? If that's the case, perhaps the definitions arent clear enough. Please clarify. 19:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with how common a sense is - if it's very easy to conflate the one with the other, then it's not worth separating. A dictionary's purpose is to be concise and to the point. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how these senses can be confused. The distinction seems to be clear, but you prefer to police the article and remove things that seem "unclear" to you. In fact, the existing two senses of "standard language" largely overlap with each other, perhaps those should be cleaned up? 11:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm growing increasingly annoyed with your tone – let a discussion run its course and stop trying to hurry the process by incessantly badgering me to react. I've already told you that I find your contributions to be superfluous – it has nothing to do with my comprehension of what you were adding. On another note, your claim that I deleted "sourced additions of distinct senses" is preposterous – I found the quote in Arnold Barrett McMillin's The Vocabulary of the Byelorussian Literary Language in the Nineteenth Century and it does in no shape or form corroborate your so called "distinct definition". I'm starting to suspect that you're trying to make senses that might exist in Polish fit their English counterparts. With that said, I believe we've come to an impasse – I'm not going to discuss this any further here. As I said before, if there's an interest, people will indulge this discussion in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hjälp med svenska översättningar[edit]

Hej. Jag undrar om du skulle vilja hjälpa med att översatta till svenska på ord som redan har en översättning på norska eller danska?

Ofta är det lätt att bara kopiera och anpassa en översättning från ett av dem andra språk eller skippa ord man inte snabbt kommer på.

Jag har skrivit två verktyg för att underlätta och tagit fram en lista över ord.

Är du intresserad?--So9q (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hej @So9q! Tack för att du tänkte på mig och grattis till ett häftigt verktyg. Skulle jättegärna vilja hjälpa till, men jag känner att jag inte kan göra det på heltid. Dock skulle jag kunna bidra sporadiskt – funkar det eller är du ute efter en "pålitligare" användare? I vilket fall som, bra jobbat hitintills! --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your rollback on my edit on step-aunt[edit]

May I ask why you undid my revision on the step-aunt page? My description of 'wife of someone's mother or father's stepbrother' is much more concise than the previous 'the wife of someone's mother's or father's brother from second or later marriage.' First of all, whose second or later marriage? This is not clear. Secondly, if the second or later marriage is that of the mother or father's parent, then the brother from a second or later marriage would be a half-brother, not a stepbrother, and thus his wife would be the person's half-aunt or simply aunt, not step-aunt. I have edited the page again. Please do not undo it. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2a00:23c7:7600:2300:710e:e345:dd64:db2 (talk).

Wow, you sure are gifted at making something pretty clear completely incomprehensible. Don't confuse how things are done in your family with how the rest of the world works. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude. I was perfectly civil to you so I expect the same in return. I wasn't citing my own family here. In English, a brother from a parent's second or later marriage is a half-brother, not a stepbrother. A stepbrother is a person you have no blood relation to. That is a fact. In no part of the world is a half-uncle's wife a stepaunt. 14:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Dude give it a rest. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Care to explain?[edit]

[1] - the wording was indirectly suggesting that the long vowel is preferable to the short vowel. If the Greek example is used, another may as well be used that spells it with a short vowel, and the whole evidence suggests nothing (as it does), so I removed it altogether. Looking at authorities, cūstōs can only be found in dictionaries over 100 years old, whereas newer ones withdraw judgment. I had also updated the etymology section. 2003:F0:AF2B:6595:B4A9:52BE:73FB:3F7F 10:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I see a couple of problems with your edit: firstly, you removed a rather comprehensive – and I stress this – possible etymology and replaced it with nothing. Secondly, you quoted De Vaan (2008) without actually providing a reference (the reference section was left unaltered). The original etymology didn't in any way say that the origins of cū̆stōs were determined, but provided a plausible theory. Wiktionary is not an authority – however, we are inclined to provide users with possible theories where they make sense and are backed up by linguists. Regarding vowel length, it was discussed by two other users here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Romanian stress, Italian stress[edit]

I know that, but I thought thus we should provide the stress, and in Italian and Romanian it should be stripped in links, because what’s the difference as compared to Bulgarian or Russian – or in Hebrew it is also marked in the transcription and one should not rely on the IPA? I don’t get any reason so far. Fay Freak (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It causes unnecessary confusion – unlike Romanian, Italian does have accents as natural parts of its orthography. As far as I know, you're the only one who has added stresses in Romanian. By the way, isn't it a bit overkill considering that stress is provided in IPA pronunciations? I can't comment on why stress is marked in Bulgarian, Russian or Hebrew transcriptions – I just know that traditionally, it isn't done for Romanian lemmas. By the way where have you seen stress in Italian entries around here which aren't compulsory such as abbordabilità, felicità, è? In all honesty, I haven't noticed and I really don't think we should add them because they can make spelling – especially for beginners – a nightmare. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Unlike in Spanish, Catalan or Portuguese, in Italian the stress cannot be seen automatically in every written word. This page and this page I quickly found and are not without reason on top of search results give explanation and examples; it has been also then and now mentioned in Wiktionary discussions but the Italian words have mostly been added without any marks or IPA (hence being occasionally ambiguous). I link two examples on Wiktionary where it matters: nocciolo, ancora.
I have been of the view that it should not be necessary to look into the IPA for orthographies that are regular (unlike English or French): in the best case one does not need to look into the pronunciation section. Well okay, I do get the notion that learners could be confused by those additional marks, since Romanian uses diacritics in its orthography, formerly even more than there are now, while Cyrillic generally does not use as much diacritics as does Roman script. Also those diacritics make it harder to copy & paste terms. It would be better to mark the stressed syllable by color change (so one does not have to look into the IPA and the saved script is not cluttered) as it is used in many dictionaries, but that would require new templates, and I just mention it since I do not plan to really add Romanian entries nor will be able to make technical inventions. Fay Freak (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the articles! I remember how frustrated I was when I studied Italian in high school and the online dictionaries providing stress did not mention that it wasn't a part of the actual spelling – needless to say, my essays in Italian were for some time covered with my teacher's notes and corrections. I think that marking the stressed syllable by colour change is a good idea. Hope someone creates that template (on second thought, what about all the colour-blind people out there?). --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
There are only some specific types of colorblindness, genetical causes with homogenous result, so one has to avoid certain combinations only. I mean it’s not that people see black and white only, but they have specific weaknesses (barring the rare condition of achromatopsia or whatever, but we already have to discriminate, as -sche explains here). For web-designers there are also certain tools to check if the content looks wrong under the supposition of (any frequent) colorblindness. But I am not going to disgress into medical conditions of the eye nor web coding. Fay Freak (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Occult cognate with hell[edit] 01:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC) I have seen that you have reverted my edits for "occult" saying that it is cognate with hell many times. Maybe you should think about the religious and more importantly etymological ramifications of leaving that out are?

It doesn't matter if it's true or not - it serves no purpose to go back that far and ignore all the linguitic turns the term took before it ended up in its present form. It's not even worth adding as a curiosity. If you have a problem with this, take it up in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
You are implying that this pair is basicly coincidence, and thatvthe Latin term was a perfectly natural synchronic derivation. This is as much soeculation, IMHO as suggesting a closer relationship between thesevwords, only maintainable in the former case underbthe assumption that Germanic developed in *another, darker plane of existence.* This is pretty *damning*. I thought that's ironic enough to be notable, but people complain about excessive etymology sections pushing tbe defs below the fold anyhow. 22:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure, it's related. So are helm, hall, Calypso (the nymph, not the music), cell, cellar, cilium and Eucalyptus, among others. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit to The application of the 'white supremacist' tag was clearly biased. 10:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And why did you protect the page? The 'white supremacist' tag is clearly wrong since plenty of people who are not white supremacists use the word 10:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if a handful of non-white supremacists use the word – the term has its origins in those circles and is mostly used by like-minded people. Trying to wash the negative connotations of this word is like saying "you know what, the n-word is just depicting a colour and also, a lot of African-Americans use it too, so it can't actually be a slur". --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Is is a fairly common and obvious word production phenomenon in English - claiming that it is connected to white supremacists is a conspiracy theory. A quick internet search will show you lots of people who use the word in its literal meaning without any ideological connotations. But hey, good luck with your ideological activism. 12:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Ditto! Some holiday reading for you: this, this and most of all, this. Enjoy! --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your "Machete Order" rollback is (partly) in error[edit]

I say "partly" because I'm unsure about the wording of "This order predates the post-Disney buyout movies" and because that definition was incomplete. However, the order you rolled it back to is incorrect, at least regarding the original source. In particular, that source clarifies that Solo and Rogue One do not come before Episode IV. 2606:A000:4503:8400:19:B453:4D3A:EA78 03:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, we can't refer to something as being "post-Disney buyout movies". I simply removed the second text – it gave too much superfluous information and was prone to vandalism. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. My main concern is that putting Solo and Rogue One at the start of the order is incorrect. 2606:A000:4503:8400:E832:C918:ED0F:6BFB 01:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
No probs. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


hi, I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions about the Romanian entries:

1) are there other words like "afli" where final i is pronounced and not just palatalizing the consonant?

2) is it necessary to add a separate entry when there is a conjugated verb form that is the same as the infinitive form (like duce or dormi)?

3) in DEX there are many forms listed that aren't here (for example for minți: eu mint / eu minț), should we be adding those as well? LICA98 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @LICA98! Let me start off by thanking you for your Romanian contributions – they are greatly appreciated! Now, back to your questions:
1) Yes, there are and I have regrettably not found a rule which helps us know when it's the case. Usually if the "i" is preceded by a cluster of consonants, then it's not palatalised. From the top of my head, I could only think of two instances: metri (plural of metru) and afli.
2) Unsure, it's not usually done here and pretty rare back in the Romanian Wiktionary. I'm not aware of any guidelines telling us what to do here, but we risk adding a long list of verbs in the infinitive in the verb forms category.
3) According to Wiktionary's guideline, yes, but they have to be marked as uncommon or proscribed.
Keep up the good work and don't hesitate to reach out if you have any additional questions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

well I think that at least when it's pronounced differently (like a dormi/tu dormi) that should be indicated right? and how do we mark forms as "uncommon"? LICA98 (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely – when it's pronounced differently, such as in a dormi/tu dormi, it should be added mostly because they're both so commonly used. But what should we do with the third-person singular imperfect which in most cases is identical to the infinitive form (for instance abandona, accepta, termina)? I really don't know. You mark the rare forms by adding {{lb|ro|uncommon}} or {{lb|ro|rare}} before the sense. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

but what about in the conjugation tables? or should we not add them there LICA98 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to the uncommon verb forms, leave them out of the conjugation tables for now. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

ok 1 more question... why on this page the forms that are the same as the infinitive aren't bolded like they are on other pages? LICA98 (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure – I took a look at ține which uses a newer template and it could be the cause. Dunno how to change it though. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Links to the page that the link is on display as bold plain text. The only way to get an actual link is by linking to a specific place on the page, such as a different language section. It might be that the template in question is just listing the terms as text without linking to them. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz well that's not true because it still links to all of the other forms LICA98 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Romanian strungă[edit]


you may compare the semantics of Albanian shtrungë and strungă in order to establish the etymology. HeliosX (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See my comment for reverting your edit. As I said earlier, you make compelling arguments and you seem knowledgeable in the subject. However, you consistently refuse to source your edits therefore giving rise to doubts. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

One of your rollbacks is in error.[edit]

I see you are rolling back my adding the obsolete forms for incrociare. Why? RizalSoulisa

I moved this to the bottom, where it belongs- no one should have to hunt for your post in among edits from 7 months ago. Now, as to the question: there were problems that left Robbie with the choice of fixing your edit, which he wouldn't have had time to do, leaving it, and hoping someone would one day run across it by chance and fix it (unlikely, since we have over 6 million entries), or revert it. So, what were the problems? We have standard formats that make the dictionary easier to use, and having a separate "Obsolete Forms" header with unlinked, capitalized verb forms would wrong in a number of ways. First of all, you'll notice that the entry is "incrociare", not Incrociare. Wiktionary is case-sensitive, and Italian verbs are normally lowercase. Second, in a dictionary that covers all historical periods, having a separate header for obsolete forms is just going to make things more complicated and messy. The usual way we do it is with an "Alternative forms" header, adding a note such as {{q|obsolete}} if necessary. Also, we try to make every term in lists like this into a link to the entry for the term, or a redlink that will allow people to create an entry if they have the information. We have lots of entries for obsolete terms- as I said, we cover all historical periods in all languages (at least those we have evidence for). However, in looking through Google Books, it seems like incrosar may not be Italian, but a related Italian language such as Emilian or Venetian. Many older references treat these as dialects of Italian, but we don't. If that's the case, it shouldn't be included in the Italian entry at all. As you can see, it's all very complicated.
I've added our standard welcome template to your talk page so you can learn more about editing here. I don't want to discourage you, but I also don't want you to keep making edits that will have to be reverted or someone will have to fix- either way, someone's time will be wasted. As for why Robbie didn't explain this all to you himself: it's Sunday afternoon in my time zone and I have more time to spend than he did (it's late at night where he is). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Chuck, it was past my phone curfew :-) RizalSoulisa, Chuck Entz explained why I reverted your changes and I hope you follow his advice if you want to keep contributing. I had to revert them again because I found no support for their existance in the most reliable Italian dictionaries. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Rollback on "dan" (Welsh)[edit]

The edit you rolled back on dan is indeed correct. It doesn't mutate. Thanks for keeping an eye out (there are all sorts of errors that get missed when it comes to Welsh!). Llusiduonbach (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok. Sorry about that, just saw an edit where the template was deleted to make room for plain text. Don't we have a template that conveys the same info? --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Rollback on jein[edit]

I think it your roll back was incorrect. Both ja and nein are particles and usage of jein seems to be identical to me. This was also supported by the source. 2A0A:A540:88D2:0:68AD:E04B:5706:FD22 21:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it is treated as an adverb in English. I will however dig a bit deeper tomorrow to see if your edit was indeed correct. --Robbie SWE (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the linguistic merits, we don't put references inside headers, and linking offsite in unusual ways always arouses suspicion- though the site in question certainly seems legitimate. I've seen people putting links in their edit comments, or adding a comment on the talk page when they think they need to provide support for a change- but headers are part of the basic structure of the site, and we have rules about which headers can be used (see WT:EL). Chuck Entz (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

loaning in the nominal sense.[edit]

Hello. I included this sense only after noticing that the sense of "action of the verb to lend" was given at lending. Perhaps "an instance of lending/loaning" are better statements? I would ask you to reconsider your reversion, or to please revert the sense at lending for the sake of uniformity. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I appreciate your intent, however, you placed it under the obscure obsolete meaning in Scottish and Northern English which might not have the same etymology. It probably should have its own section – if you intend on adding it back, please use proper formatting. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Robbie, I have tried to do as you have indicated. I introduced two separate etymologies to the article, corresponding to two distinct nominal senses. This was rather 'high speed' for myself, so I hope that this is formatted acceptably. I do not know how to make the hyperlinks navigate to the exact spot desired on the destination page, though... —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
You definitely get an A for effort – I made some minor changes. Don't hesitate to ask for help if you ever feel lost. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Formating of homophones?[edit]

Sorry for bothering you, Robbie SWE. I just added the second meaning of Bulgarian слон (slon). There are two semantic kernels for this word - standard elephant and dialectal offset, sheltersheepfold. They are pronounced in the same way, so I left the Pronunciation section at the top and separated the two meanings under Etymology 1 and Etymology 2. Is this how it's supposed to be? 12:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen articles formatted this way so I see no problem with your edits. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. 12:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi. Being Italian, I can tell you that Geppetto is short for Giuseppetto, a diminutive for Giuseppe. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That goes in the Italian entry (which is yet to be created). You were editing the English entry, and removing information. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
But the current version implies that Geppetto is equivalent to English Japheth, while there is no proof that these two names are related: their similarity is almost surely a coincidence, since they have different etymologies. There have been several Italian translations of Japeth, but Geppetto was never one of them. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm honestly having a hard time understanding your intention here @Newblackwhite. The etymology clearly states that the English Geppetto is borrowed from Italian – as Metaknowledge said, the Italian section is currently missing and you're more than welcome to create it, but please use proper formatting. As for Japheth, the Italian article on Wikipedia says, and I quote, "Jafet o Iafet, anticamente anche italianizzato Giapeto (in ebraico יפת, pron. Iéfet) è un personaggio biblico[...]". I admit, the spelling might be a bit off, but are you saying that there is not connection at all? Would appreciate some sources clearly stating that. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE Indeed, to my knowledge there is no connection at all between Geppetto and Japeth, and the similarity with the ancient and rarely used Giapeto is likely a coincidence. However, a source saying that they are unrelated is hard to find, as it would require to prove a negative; I think the burden of proof should lie on people claiming that these names are related, something that at the moment is not backed up by any source. Anyway, the closest thing to a source that I could bring now is a comparison of etymologies:
I am neither a linguist nor a scholar, but it is my understanding that if two names are similar but have different etymologies then they are not the equivalent of each other. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I can agree with you about the burden of proof part. This is what I'm going to do: I'm deleting the Japheth part because there just isn't enough information about it. I'll also add an Italian section. From now on though, if you plan on participating, please follow our guidelines and use our templates. Ask for help if you get stuck or don't know what to do. Next time you come across information you think should be deleted, always ask the community for input. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a good solution. I apologize if I didn't use proper formatting, it's just that I am used to editing Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary and I am not familiar with the latter's rules. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Glad we could come to an understanding. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

¿ to let sth be steeped = etw ziehen lassen = lasciare insaporire ?[edit]

Referring to / how would you put it to make an offer for cooking terminology? Any idea? -- 12:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You don't. We don't have an entry for be steeped and I doubt it would be of use since the sense is covered at steep. What were you trying to achieve with your edit? Maybe I can help. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to have a proper translation for "etw ziehen lassen = lasciare insaporire" to be found on wiktionary. Please show me the link or anyone reading this question. What do you call ¿ to let sth be steeped = etw ziehen lassen = lasciare insaporire ? in Sweden? Please help! -- 16:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not idiomatic so it will not meet CFI. Please move on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please answer all my questions to show that you have understood me and to make me carry on. -- 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to be any clearer – the translation you are after is not idiomatic and does not meet CFI. The Swedish equivalent would be lägga i blöt and would, due to SoP issues, not meet CFI either. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

:ϟ the translation you are after is not idiomatic and does not meet CFI :ϟ. Could you please check if there is any support for your opinion. Please link to the translation of lägga i blöt. Thanks so far. -- 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You're just not getting it – it is SoP. Read our guidelines about CFI and stop bugging me. I'm not going to link the Swedish translation because it does not merit an entry, the same as the other translations you've been trying to add. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

>>stop bugging me<< Robbie, you better controll your emotions. This is not fair. I want a pricise answer that is supported by less emotionally engaged wikipedians. -- 21:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

>>I'm not going to link the Swedish translation because it does not merit an entry,...<< This is not the plurality and the diversity with the unterstanding of the Wikipedian Movement of Free Voluteers. -- 22:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  1. This is Wiktionary. We do things quite a bit differently from Wikipedia.
  2. Robbie is also a volunteer. Why should he be forced to do your bidding?
  3. If someone decides to add an entry for sdnglurbflom as the German word for cat, should we acquiesce in the spirit of volunteerism?
Simply put, you're asking us to include an entry that has no reason to exist. There are thousands of intransitive verbs that can be used in such a construction, and if you know the construction and you know the words, you can figure out how to say/interpret all of them. It would be like having entries for "ich heiße Hans", "Ich heiße Wilhelm", "Ich heiße Franz", etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This is not healthy. You are right, but the ballance of cooperation (benefit/cost) has been disturbed. Sorry, my interests were hurt. A low cost punishment of failed cooperation is shunning. -- 07:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Protection of my discussion page[edit]

Hi Robbie SWE,

could you possibly protect my talk page for editing by IPs and new users?

This LTA troll doesn't stop anyway. Therefore, if possible, please protect indefinitely.

Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, my discussion page was vandalized again by this LTA troll a few minutes ago. Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry this happened to you. I reverted the vandalism. blocked the IP and protected your page. Let me know if you need anything else. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbie SWE, thanks a lot. That should be enough to stop this poor sick person. Usually he is mostly only active in de.wikipedia and de.wiktionary (and there also with other users and also in articles or entries). Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


If you don't think Wiktionary should link to w:He-Man, would you be willing to explain why in the Tea room? Thanks. 11:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Romanian pronunciation of "ii"[edit]


whatsoever may have happened, I would like to know the guideline that posits [iː] as pronunciation for Romanian "ii". In w:Romanian phonology it is ascertained as [ij]. Also, no long vowels are provided in the article for Romanian because the language, as well separately considered, does not have these. In this phonological research by Ioana Chițoran săbii is given as [səbij], sălcii as [səlt͡ʃij] and prăpăstii as [prəpəstij] on p. 225. It was printed by notable publisher de Gruyter and the first article linked to is based to a large extent on her assessments. I am also directing this at Word dewd544, Redboywild and ManFromSuceava. HeliosX (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't put all my money on Chițoran's work – Wiktionary doesn't follow her IPA transcriptions which comprise different IPA traditions. It might not be a written rule AFAIK, but it sure makes sense – especially to a native speaker – that it's a long vowel. For Romanians, săbii sounds like [səbi:], sălcii sounds like [səlt͡ʃi:] and prăpăstii sounds like [prəpəsti:]. I'll look for sources that corroborate this distinction, so stay tuned. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
In addition, I would like to know where it would have been established that her works were not allowed on Wiktionary. HeliosX (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I apologise if what I wrote made you believe that Chițoran's work is questionable - I didn't imply anything of the like. However, please take into consideration that Wiktionary is autonomous and has taken freedoms when it comes to IPA which digress from say Chițoran's body of work. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Roll backs in error[edit]

Hi Robbie SWE, you recently made a couple of roll backs in error, namely on piĵamo and pepper. I have reverted these since the edits did not add any erroneous or unwanted information. 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My rollbacks were not in error - however, your edits were utterly superfluous. Adding synonyms and different spellings the way you did adds nothing to the entries. You are blocked because you took the unnecessary step to revert before we had a chance to discuss these issues. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

your removal of the "a" in "a se furișa"[edit]

I am not aware of a style guide or anything of that sort that advises against the use of "a" in romanian infinitives. If it in fact does not exists, the community should first decide on either style before making such changes. At present, I see both styles (with and without "a") being used, e.g. run.

--Fytcha (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference between how you refer to something in everyday speech and how you refer to it in a translation table. You'll notice that the English entry is sneak, not "to sneak". I'm guessing that pretty much every Romanian verb could be written with an infinitive marker, which would mean that they would all be in the dictionary under "a"... Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's exactly how Chuck Entz says – adding the infinitive marker is just not something we do. We don't do it in the Romanian Wiktionary project either. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, so it seems that there is a standard (namely, omitting the "a"). In that case, I'll remove the infinitive "a"s whenever I encounter them in translations. --Fytcha (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


1) is there a way to know when in combinations like "ia", "ie", "eu", "au", "iu" etc. the i and u are pronounced separately and when a diphthong? like I've seen on DEX they indicate it on some words but sometimes I don't really understand the way they put it

like here for example:

  • Pron. -ci-a, p.i. 3,6 -iază, ger. -iind.

what does this mean? that in the -iază and -iind forms there is a dipthong but in the rest there isn't?

2) in the "see also" is it necessary to add words in other scripts (like Cyrillic, Greek etc.)? also what about words that differ in 1 character (like here)

3) why in the Romanian wiktionary IPA they use the apostrophe (') instead of the IPA stress mark (ˈ)? LICA98 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent questions – is it ok if I get back to you tomorrow? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
sure, whenever you have time LICA98 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience! Now to your questions @LICA98:

1) The combinations you mentioned are the most common diphthongs, but it all depends on the stress. DEX is pretty great when it comes to this – if the stress falls on one of the vowels and is separated by a syllable, then the diphthong is cancelled. E.g. negocia /ne.go.ʧiˈa/. However, you're right to be confused – the other forms do indeed have diphthongs. To me, they sound like negociază /ne.go.ʧiˈja.zə/; negociind /ne.go.ʧiˈjind/. They are however AFAIK pretty rare, so I doubt that there is a rule to guide you.

2) No, other scripts shouldn't be added. Romanian is – according to the Romanian Academy – written exclusively in the Latin script. Any other script is to be considered a historic remnant and shouldn't be dispersed. This however creates problems for Moldovan which in some instances is written using a Cyrillic script. It's a subject we haven't dealt with here so there is no consensus. When it comes to words that differ in one character, it's probably a fluke. Haven't seen this used like that before and I don't want to encourage this use either.

3) In the Romanian Wiktionary we imported a large number of lemmas from DEX and in the process we had a bot add pronunciation. Unfortunately, the bot substituted the IPA stress mark (ˈ) with an apostrophe ('), so we have a huge number of incorrect IPA pronunciations. I usually correct them whenever I stumble upon them, but unless we program a bot, I'm afraid we'll have to accept that there will be glitches.

Let me know if I can help with anything else! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

sorry I wasn't quite clear about 2: I meant that in general if another language that is written with a different alphabet has a similar word then should I add it in the "see also" section? e.g. for morcov there would be "see also: морков and морковь" (in Bulgarian and Russian respectively)
1 more question: in words like "absent" or "obține" is the b pronounced like /b/ or /p/? LICA98 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry I misunderstood you. I've seen it done in some entries, so it wouldn't be wrong to add, say морков at morcov. But I would say that it's not necessary. When it comes to absent and obține, both are pronounced with /b/. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


Hello. This pronunciation is correct or wrong? "aw-THAW-rize". 14:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

My revert had nothing to do with the pronunciation per se – you just can't add "wrong pronunciation" in brackets like that. It's better to delete it altogether or, even better, add it under the appropriate section. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

gone haywire[edit]

Hi there, that's not a good redirect? I thought it seemed acceptable under the last criterion in Wiktionary:Redirections#Acceptable uses. I'm not upset; rather, I don't want to mess up the wiki! Let me know if there's anything I should know for future editing. Thanks and have a good day. -- 19:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe go haywire, but gone haywire just didn't look like an appropriate redirect. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


Hello Robbie. Although that she didn't mispronounced, but her microphone was bad, so it sounds like [ˈt͡sɛvən], the "s" isn't clear, should I remove this recording? 16:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If the pronunciation indeed sounds like [ˈt͡sɛvən], then you should delete it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I said that it’s because of the microphone. 19:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Why edits on Johnny and Jack?[edit]

Why on God's green Earth were they reverted? Did you just revert them because you felt like it or something? ( 17:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

John is according to all sources, a diminutive of John – not Jonathan. Jack is also primarily a diminutive of John. We have to draw a line somewhere and adding every possible name remotely connected to either is not in the best interest of this project. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the IP has a point, though. "Jonathan" and "John" may be etymologically different, and there's the form "Jon" that's specific to Jonathan, but in modern usage there's no real distinction between "John" that started out as "John" and "John" formed as a nickname from "Jonathan". "Johnny", at least, can be derived from a "John" of either origin, and it looks like "Jack" is the same. It then becomes a matter of whether "Jonathan"-->"John"-->"Johnny" can also be described as "Jonathan"-->"Johnny". Look at this and this Google search for evidence. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, I understand your stance, however, I respectfully disagree. For instance, Robin is originally a diminutive form of Robert (just like Johnathan is related to John) – should Robin then be listed at Bob? Somehow I think it's warranted to include "the least common denominator" which in this case is John. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Two of your rollbacks might be erroneous.[edit]

Hey there Robbie, I just wanted to talk about two rollbacks, which are on the words chilly and plack. I understand why you might've rolled back plack, the only reason I labelled it as an alternative form instead of a misspelling is because it's etymologically correct, kind of like how check is an alternative form of cheque. However, I do think that chilly is a misspelling. 03:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The spelling "chilly" may be nonstandard for the US and UK, but it seems to be perfectly normal in South Asian usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I guess that makes sense, but I'm still questioning the other rollback. 17:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The only alternative spelling I could find for plaque is placque. Plack is not mentioned anywhere in the dictionaries I looked in, so it prompts me to believe that it indeed is a misspelling. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that would make sense, I actually created plack as an alternative form of plaque by reworking the word from Proto-Germanic "*plaggą" in which plaque originates from into Old English "*plæcca" and then into Middle English "plack", and now that I think about it, I guess I got a bit carried away by putting it on here since no dictionary really accepts it. 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Native language vs Mother tongue[edit]

If someone is born to parents with X language, in a country with Y language, hence acquiring both from birth, then their mother tongue is X. Not Y. Not by any possibly stretch of the imagination ...but they are a native speaker of both X and Y.
According to anyone, and according to any definition. (outside of Wiktionary)

If someone is born to parents with X language, in a country with Y language, but the parents avoid their own language, in a misguided attempt to help their child acquire the language of the country (and not get confused or slowed down, which they actually wouldn't be, by having to juggle two languages), then that person will only learn Y, from birth. Their mother tongue will still be X, but they don't know it (or if they do, it'll be due to learning it later, as a Second Language) and it will not be a native language. They will not be a native speaker of X ...but they will be a native speaker of Y.

Essentially any place you may want to check, defines "native speaker" as someone who speaks a language as a native language ...and defines native language, in exactly the same terms as First Language. In other words, a language you grow up absorbing, in early childhood. That said, if it's a language that isn't a mother tongue, or a language of the country that you grew up in, I wouldn't classify that as "native", but that's just my personal opinion. (dunno how many would share it. Most wouldn't think to consider such a scenario. I inevitably do, as one of my First Languages, falls under that exact category)

Either way, the current Wiktionary definition, is preposterously wrong.
...and I notice that the definition for First Language, is also deeply wrong.
The first language one is taught?
There are three problems with that:
1. First Languages are not taught or learned! They are acquired, subconsciously. Teaching/learning is a conscious and deliberate process. Learned languages, are Second Languages. (note: There are First Languages, and Second Languages. There is no such thing as a Third Language)
2. You can acquire multiple languages, as First Languages. In my example above, you have someone with two. Which is very common. I grew up with three. (which isn't that rare, either)
3. In the cases like in point 2 above...
How are you supposed to know what order to place the languages in? Which language can be said to have been acquired first? That is completely impossible, to determine.-- 20:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Any point you are trying to make is completely lost in an overly verbose and, at times, inconsistent discourse. In addition to this, your purge of the translations section was really not in your favour and it eradicated any goodwill I might have had in this matter. Wiktionary is in no way, shape or form prescriptive – we simply describe how words are used IRL. Your edit made little sense – "A person who learned the relevant language, more of less from birth."; in addition to being grammatically problematic, it does not give a precise enough definition. What is a "relevant language" in this case? Honestly, this is no place to push a personal opinion about a term. More comprehensive definitions are found here, here and here. I don't see how they contradict the definition we're providing. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Inconsistent? How? Where?
Removing translations, that are clearly wrong in light of the definition, after fixing the definition, is merely a necessary part of changing the definition and not a further action. (which I simply forgot to do, in my first edit, hence why it was done as a separate one) Why it should be seen as a further "transgression"... Not that I see why you view removal of false content, to be controversial or bad.
"Wiktionary is in no way, shape or form prescriptive – we simply describe how words are used IRL."
In this case, you don't. That is not how "native speaker" is used. By anyone. No one would say that someone who grows up in, say, Korea to Spanish parents, speaks Korean as their mother tongue (their mother tongue, exclusively being Spanish) ...but everyone would say that they speak Korean, as a native speaker.
"Your edit made little sense"
How so?
"in addition to being grammatically problematic"
How so?
"it does not give a precise enough definition."
Countless words, are not very precise...
"What is a "relevant language" in this case?"
I would have thought that was perfectly obvious: For a native speaker of English, the relevant language is English. When talking about Spanish, and mentioning native speakers, the relevant language is Spanish. Maybe I'm wrong, however, and it isn't quite so clear, in which case the phrasing needs to be fixed. The meaning, however...
"Honestly, this is no place to push a personal opinion about a term."
There is nothing personal about my edit. This isn't my opinion. It is clear and obvious fact, that any and all sources confirm.
"More comprehensive definitions are found /.../ I don't see how they contradict the definition we're providing."
Not a single one of those, stated anything about the language being that of a/both parent(s), or made any mention of mother tongue. They merely state that it is a language learned at very young age ...with great inconsistency, in regards to HOW young an age. If you check more dictionaries, and encyclopedias ...and linguists and other relevant experts, you will find that this is true across the board. Hence why I was vague, in regards to the age. In other words: Those definitions DO contradict your definition. They do not, however, contradict the one I wrote, in any possible way, and mine doesn't contradict theirs.
It is clearly you who are the one being personal, doing the typical thing on Wiktionary, of opposing all edits from people outside of the establishment. Anything done by anyone anonymous or new, is treated as negatively as possible, with responses that are written with an assumption of bad faith well as a reluctance to talk/discuss (indeed, after making your reply, and challenging me to find contrary evidence, you then personally block me, so that I cannot show it! The only reason I bother to make a reply at all, is because it was only a one day block ...though why I would bother to do anything on here, at all, ever...) Treating anything done/said by "outsiders", as wrong, because they are "outsiders", fully regardless of any evidence or argument/logic.
Completely opposing any and all stated rules, guidelines, policies, and stated goals of Wikimedia, and what little there is of such things on Wiktionary (Wikipedia, on the other hand, has an admirable framework of rules, guidelines, and states goals. Too bad their admins regularly break them, with impunity...)
Oh, and if you complain about the above being "confrontational" or "rude": People in glass houses... (and if you complain about it breaking rules or guidelines: HA! How about you make sure you, and the other admins, actually follow them? Until then, you have no credibility or authority. Power to block and stuff, sure, but... And if you block me, I'll be deeply unsurprised, having only been proven right. Again)-- 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Take off your offerkofta and just stop vilifying this community – we are not discussing 薙刀 (it is you, isn't it?) and I haven't stopped you from bringing this issue to the attention of the community. On the contrary, I encouraged you to take it up in the Tea Room in my reason for the revert. The definition of native speaker is perfectly fine – there is absolutely no reason to complicate things – just because you grow up in a country does not make you automatically a native speaker of that country's language(s). I'm not discussing this any further – the external sources I posted were only to show that there are several interpretations out there, not to convince you of anything because simply, I just don't care. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"we are not discussing 薙刀 (it is you, isn't it?)"
Just because I express the true nature of Wiktionary, you assume I must be the same person as one who did so previously? Granted, you happen to be right, in this instance, but that is still a very foolish thing to do ...and IIRC, someone assumed I was the same person as had been in some previous altercation, back then as well. Quite wrongly, I might add.
You're the one playing the victim, here ...and I'm not vilifying the community, so much as stating clear and demonstrable and indisputable facts, in regards to it. You guys are the ones who vilify the community, by being villains.
You haven't stopped me from bringing this issue to the attention of the community, have you? YOU BLOCKED ME!!!
"The definition of native speaker is perfectly fine"
It stands in direct conflict, with any and every definition out there, as even your cited examples indicate. None of them talk of "mother tongue" or parents, much less have it as a requirement. Your definition does. To defend that, is to go completely counter to the stated goals or rules of Wiktionary, and qualifies as pushing a personal opinion, rather than describing common usage.
"just because you grow up in a country does not make you automatically a native speaker of that country's langauge(s)."
Don't try to push your personal opinion!
Any and all sources (including the ones you cited) clearly disagree with you ...and any that are more exhaustive than a mere dictionary definition (which are very short, often [by necessity] oversimplified, and far from fully covering the subject) is explicit in stating that a native tongue isn't necessarily a mother tongue. (and what of people who have grown up with just a single language, not belonging to either parent? Do they have no native language, in your opinion?)
I have never encountered, or heard of, anyone who would come anywhere close to ever think to imply, that someone who grows up with a language, due to it being the language of the country that they were born and raised in, isn't thereby a native speaker of that language ...aside from racists, of course.
(also, if you really think that, you should remove First Language speaker, as a synonym, shouldn't you?)
"I'm not discussing this any further"
Ah yes. As I said, you guys don't believe in dialogue or discussion. You've decided beforehand, that anything said by an outsider, is wrong.
"the external sources I posted were only to show that there are several interpretations out there, not to convince you of anything"
That is a lie. You explicitly said "More comprehensive definitions are found here, here and here. I don't see how they contradict the definition we're providing.", which is clearly you trying to show that your definition is in agreement with common dictionary definitions ...except NONE OF THEM agree with you, and all of them agree with me ...and none of them are actually more comprehensive, than mine (except that some are more precise, in terms of age ...but I've pointed out, how there is no firm agreement on the exact age. Hence the only sensible course, in a descriptive dictionary, being to be vague on that point)
"because simply, I just don't care."
Mm, that's why you blocked me, is it? Though not caring, may explain why you cited dictionary definitions that undermined your own position... You care. You just don't care to listen, or about logic, reason, or evidence, about right or wrong, about being in any way civil, decent, or respectful, to any degree, whatsoever. You don't care about discussion ...and this isn't one.
"Two monologues do not make a dialogue."
I have, despite my previous experiences, been willing to engage in dialogue (if I wasn't, I wouldn't write any comments), but you haven't.
Hence it isn't one.-- 21:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
So almost a week has gone by and... nothing. You've decided to ignore this. Further proving my point, and reminding me of the futility of bothering with Wiktionary, as it opposes discussion or debate, and any kind of "outsider" edits, regardless of whether they are bad or perfectly in accordance with the stated rules and guidelines. (as they go against the most important rule: they're made by an outsider, and an admin "feels" threatened by it, for no good reason)
Why I bothered, I don't know... I guess I'm still too naive.-- 13:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


A shield is not a piece of armour. Armour is something you wear, which passively protects you. A shield isn't worn, it's wielded. It is actively used, to protect. Technically, it's a weapon. Mainly defensive, yes, but still.-- 12:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What does "A broad of defensive object" mean? You ripped the guts out of the sentence and left a mangled wreck. That's more than enough reason to revert, without even looking at the semantics. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so I forgot to remove the "of". That is easily fixed by removing it. No need to revert.-- 14:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semantics, shmemantics – it doesn't hold up anyways. See this and this. Unless you can convince the good people behind Merriam-Webster and that their definitions are incorrect, there is no substantial reason to delete it here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Whilst it is very rare to find people who would define shields as, or think of them in any way as, weapons (and note I didn't include that in my modification to the definition. I would in a prescriptive dictionary, sure, but certainly not in a descriptive one), people do not, typically think of them as armour. People think of weapons, shields, and armour as three separate categories. Your cherry-picked definitions are invalid, as there are countless others, that describe the word without any mention of armour ...and the case for removing reference to shields being armour, doesn't have to show that it isn't armour. Merely that there is no clear case that it is.-- 12:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Definitions that go against the notion that shields are armour: Cambridge, Collins, macmillan, lexico, oxfordlearnersdictionaries (also the OED, proper, though that appears to be behind a paywall) ...and I could probably go on, with many more. You, however, could not.-- 12:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ibid (see above). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

...except the arguments are different, here, meaning that what you said there, cannot apply here. (even ignoring how it's all fallacies and full of holes, which doesn't really apply there, either) Granted, in both cases, you are in conflict with how dictionaries define it (and encyclopedias describe it), whilst I'm not. In both cases, you reject common usage, whilst I conform to it. You have no case, and you think that actually trying to make a case for it, actually evaluating the arguments and evidence, is beneath your dignity, and you can simply go with your initial gut feeling (or whatever some other admin has written, which must be right, because they're an admin) and reject anything that conflicts with it, out of hand. You might try to make some pathetic argument at first, to give the impression of being reasonable ...but beyond that, you'll either try to shut the "discussion" down ...or simply block the annoying person, who is implying that you might not be infallible.-- 21:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
MW online is known to be particularly poor. 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
That is: American centric. This might explain the different notions about l'armour. Playing deaf to the criticizm is a particularly sad display of ignorance. No excuses. 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Rollback error[edit]

Rollback was in error. 2601:600:9500:42:E4A0:45D3:491A:59A9 06:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


Perhaps Only in Chile says «beterraga» in Spain uses betarraga

R C Peña-- 22:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply! You didn't use proper formatting, but I fixed it for you. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback - Niderlandy[edit]

Rollback of Polish Niderlandy meaning Low Countries is incorrect. There is no other way to refere to "Low Countries" in Polish.
source: - Dictionary of Polish PWN: "Niderlandy, hol. Nederlanden,[...], z czasem rozciągnięta także na Ardeny i sąsiednie wyżyny, obecnie wchodzące w skład Belgii, Holandii i Luksemburga. " eng: "pol:Niderlandy, dutch:Nederlanden,in time it was also extended to the Ardennes and the neighboring highlands, now part of Belgium, the 'Netherlands/Holland' and Luxembourg."[google translate]
wikipedia also agrees "Niderlandy (region historyczny)" ("region historyczny" means "historical region" to clarify) corresponds to English language version: Low Countries 20:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because you placed the sense after the categories which isn't considered proper layout. Even if you can't see the effects in the article itself, we still have to be careful and follow layout guidelines. --Robbie SWE (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


What's up with the mod-endorsed vandalism on adicio? 15:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are descendants of the adjective adjectivus, not the verb adicio. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Adject is also, firstly, barely a word, neither derived adicio. Adject, being only listed on Merriam-Webster which is certainly in the low tier of dictionaries, isn't derived from adicio, but from adjectus, as Webster puts it (if you are even gonna trust it). The word isn't on Cambridge or Google dictionary. 03:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@ you should be thankful that our Midsummer celebrations here in Sweden have put me in a, let's say, forgiving mood – "mod-endorsed vandalism" would definitely land you a block from me. In addition to it not being a descendant of adicio, you also added faulty code which gave rise to an inexistent template. So next time an admin reverts your edit, please go directly to them with your grievances before you readd the contribution that was deemed problematic. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The template is a simple bracketbracket.desc|lang|word.bracketbracket, as everybody uses it. I don't know what "broken template" is, it looked fine upon review. In addition of this place not being a real dictionary neither a respectable site, your celebrations "here in Sweden" are irrelevant given the fact that adject has little to do with adicio, which is barely a real word, as explained above. 03:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, you undid my edit on promiscuous over a month and a half ago[edit]

I had completely forgotten about until it just came back to my memory now. If by any chance, you could tell me why, it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for your answer. ( 00:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your example was completely inappropriate and useless. You can say that about women, and men for that matter, from basically every country on the planet. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


Two pennyworth. Hi, I revertrd the claim that two cents has overtaken two pennywoth in the UK< that sort of claim should have a good source behind it.Halbared (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC

I did the same on the two cents. That sort of claim can't be justified without a reference.Halbared (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is a source request, you can't just delete the entire thing. You have to follow our process, so your edit will be reverted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like anecdote, original research, it's misleading, wiki isn't the creator of facts. What is the process?Halbared (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The process is to start a discussion in the Tea Room. Getting community input is the best way to gather support for you stance, that is, if it's valid. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The claim has made been up in wiki, with no source. The claim itself seems to have no 'validity.Halbared (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Valid or not, you either follow due process or you go do something else. I'm starting to lose my patience here. If you delete it again, I will block you. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


Curious if my edit was rejected for its content or the way it was entered. I believe the Basque meaning of mascot is closer to its use in English. And it is not a stretch that it might have passed from Basque to its close neighbor Occitan.

If the removal was for the mode of entry I would appreciate your guidance.

Manrehberg (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because it is considered original research, which really isn't allowed. The etymology is pretty clear and trying to link it to any Basque cognate is unsubstantiated. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"trying to link it to any Basque cognate is unsubstantiated." That's a contradiction in terms. Basque cannot be cognate with an IE language anyhow, if Basque is a language isolate. An etymonline etymology is never "pretty clear", that is a century out of date on many accounts. Whether OP is onto something or not is immaterisl because they didn't convince you? As if you'd hunt down any obscure reference? Go ahead enforce references on all English etymologies. Should take a long while. 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


I’ve noticed that you on a few occasions have reverted some of my edits that take away possibly misleading information; citing some half-truths. Unfortunately, the wiki doesn’t give me enough space in the notes-on-revisions section to state my entire cases. I find it worrisome that they’re definitions surrounding ideas about gender and sexuality. I’m calmly requesting any disambiguation about this situation you can give. BlackAdvisor (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pivot the definitions towards any given gender or sexuality. Believe you me, I'm all for making definitions as neutral as possible. But in this case you can't disregard facts such as mass production and world sales. If we take that parameter into consideration, then using the word "chiefly for women" about thongs or G-strings isn't biased, but merely depicting the reality most people live in. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

First, you’re ignoring one important thing I wrote there which is that there are two definitions of the word ‘chiefly’ and there is a very significant difference between the two. You also used ‘most’ in the same ambiguous way. BlackAdvisor (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about semantics here. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using words like "chiefly" or "most", because they don't exclude anybody. I still see problems with some of your edits and I will be bringing the issue to the attention of this community. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


Hello. Where shall this "BP discussion a while ago" be? Because the translation is not "utterly superfluous", but correct and useful, and such translations are common in the English Wiktionary, for example Swedish has "ruotsin kieli", "língua sueca", "limba suedeză" and many more, and even English still has "engleski jezik", "lingua ngrisa" and more. --Dialektologe (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is found here. I was mistaken that it was a BP discussion, but it doesn't negate the consensus that entries like that are redundant. If that is the case, why on earth would we accept them in the translations section? For Romanian, but also the other Romance languages, such compounds are common when referring to languages but they are not included in dictionaries. If you feel this is worth discussing further, please bring it up in the Tea Room. I'm however inclined to delete such translations because they are redundant and lack precision. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Rollback error[edit]

Hello there, you did a rollback on "wank", removing a well-founded section in the etymology. Would you mind explaining why? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 05:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC).

Your edit was not accompanied by a source, so it kind of felt taken out of the blue especially considering the trustworthy sources already present, designating it as "unknown". In addition to this, it lacked appropriate formatting. I advise you to read this and if you find sources backing you up, please make sure to show the whole development from Old Saxon into Modern English – words don't just jump from extinct languages to living ones willy-nilly. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your objection is entirely absurd. You can't prove a negative - it is not possible for a word to have an inherently unknown etymology, the source referred to simply did not have one. Regardless, I did have a look at the purported source claiming it to "be unknown", and there is no such information there. "please make sure to show the whole development from Old Saxon into Modern English" - I thought this place didn't allow original research? I could show a trail through time, but I'm not at all certain that that kind of entry has a place here, nor do I want to spend that kind of time on an entry when quarrellous self-entitled jerks get to rudely remove things "willy-nilly" and then patronise the contributor. I copied the formatting from another article. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 21:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC).


Hello. This is the word "liste" in French with French accent, the vowel is very closed with a smile, but it's short, but to American people, you heard "least" or "list"? 22:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Romanian diacritics[edit]

Hi there, I'm cleaning up Romanian verb forms with manual headwords using diacritics (e.g. gândind), and I was wondering if these are desirable or fit in our policy. These entries already have pronunciations, so the issue is whether it's common practice to write them, even if it's just in dictionaries. Ultimateria (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: See this page above. He finds them confusing. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's just that it doesn't exist in Romanian, so any native speaker would find it confusing and non-natives would think Romanian requires these stress marks like Italian. Besides, if there is a pronunciation section, I see no reason why we should have them. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I won't preserve those manual head parameters then. Ultimateria (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My edit on kickass[edit]

Why was it undone? ( 00:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It just wasn't good enough as an example sentence. You seem to add quite a few of those and I'm not the only one who thinks so. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"leviathan" example sentence[edit]

Can you explain why you reverted my change? Was there a procedure I was meant to follow?

I would like the current example sentence replaced because I'm uncomfortable with its adjacency to body shaming, among other more minor reasons. Autumnontape (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The current text does not necessarily have anything to do with body-shaming and I'm growing increasingly tired with people who interpret the most mundane texts as derogatory – he could've been a bodybuilder, disproportionately sized for the seating arrangements or plus sized and proud of it. Your example ("A leviathan stood before me, forty storeys tall or more.") didn't provide any comparison or relate to anything familiar, thus making it a bad usage example. It's the equivalent of "I saw a bird" used as an example for bird. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say it was intrinsically derogatory; I said it was adjacent to body shaming, and I say so because the way such language is deployed toward strangers in real life is virtually always body shaming. I don't have a problem with acknowledging the existence of large people, but different ways of talking about them have different connotations. In my opinion, a less mundane example would also serve better in an entry for a word that's most often used to evoke a sense of awe. I don't think changing the example sentence to something more like what I wrote should be controversial unless you have some particular reason to be attached to the current one, so I will ask if you would object to a replacement that uses a type of building as a point of comparison rather than a number of stories: A leviathan loomed before me, taller even than the skyscrapers that stood around it. Autumnontape (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
It's still not working for me I'm afraid, and my main reason for saying so is that you just write "a leviathan" like it's something beknownst to everyone – if people look this up in the first place then they need a reference point. My suggestion: Walking through the redwood forest, a leviathan loomed before me, taller even than the skyscrapers in the city. Not my best attempt, but I hope you understand what I'm going for. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
How's this: As I stared across the sea, there arose from the depths a leviathan of a creature, which loomed far above me and my ship. Autumnontape (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Perfect! Go for it! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
All right, thank you for taking the time to workshop this with me. Autumnontape (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Rhymes for "gular"[edit]

Wiktionary's rhymes are based on RP but variably rhotic. "Gular" only belongs under -uːlə(ɹ). If it belonged under -uːlə, every English accent would be non-rhotic. Here's the Wiktionary guide for rhymes:

Edit Reverts[edit]

I'm guessing you reverted my edits in the descendants sections of those Vulgar Latin pages because each word should be its own separate link? When did anyone tell me that? I was never notified. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that @Word dewd544 – I wrote why in the summary section of the revert, but I forgot to contact you personally to explain myself. My bad! That's precisely why I reverted – each word should be individually linked (see Reconstruction:Latin/posso). On another note, I don't believe it's right to include the long infinitive (infinitivul lung) as a descendant. For starters, it's considered a noun in Romanian thus having its own specific meaning, and secondly we have to ask ourselves if it's an internal development in Romanian or if it is a direct descendant of that specific Latin verb form. For instance, is putere a descendant of *possō or a descendant of the present infinitive potēre? Do you see my conundrum? Otherwise, keep up the good work – your contributions are truly appreciated :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I understand. The long infinitive is used as a noun in Romanian yes. I suppose I included it, as well as the Aromanian form, to show more direct comparisons to the other Romance equivalents (interestingly in a few cases, like Italian piacere and French plaisir, the infinitive can be used as a noun). But yeah it's still debatable whether the addition of the -re suffix to the short infinitive is a later development within Romanian or has an earlier root. From what I've read, the longer form in (pre-written) Proto-Romanian would have been the norm and actually used as a verb, but it evolved over time to its current usage. But thanks, I'll keep these policies in mind going forward. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I fully understand why you added them and even if I personally would abstain from including them because of the uncertainty surrounding their internal development, I would not have reverted your edits if you had used proper formatting. So this is purely a policy issue and I believe we've come to a solution. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm also directing this remark at @Word dewd544. In Aromanian, the long infinitive has partially maintained its verbal use which gives proof that it may have been used verbally in Proto-Romanian. It is unclear, seemingly, whether the long infinitive of Romanian employed for the archaic conditional derives from a conditional based on the perfect stem, only adopting the infinitive stem later on, or was formerly based on the infinitive stem as well. But the long infinitive should, from my point of view, not necessarily be listed because it only functions as a noun in Romanian nowadays. The infinitive suffix "-re" was certainly not an innovation of Romanian, further reasoned as it is shared by Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian as well. HeliosX (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Medical prefixes, suffixes, and combining forms[edit]

You'll also want to hide the first of my undos on Appendix:Medical prefixes, suffixes, and combining forms because it contains the offensive text. I suggest protecting the page so only registered users can edit it because it is a frequent target of vandalism. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, protected the page for a month. We'll have to see if the protection needs to be extended. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Another vandal today. Probably needs to be permanently protected against anonymous editing. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


Can you answer a few questions on the use of The verb Object.

1. The difference between objecting vs disagreeing?

2. How is it possible to disagree with a something? Eg I disagree with the thing called the air conditioner. As opposed to the things behavior (which it doesn’t really have)

3. Tell me one time the use of the word to object is NOT related to someone’s behavior not someone or something.

I believe all the dictionaries have it wrong and your editing is contributing to this error with potentially grave consequences due to how we disagree and the resultant disputes that follow. Desa97 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Desa97 , sorry for the delay! The usage example (I object to the proposal to build a new airport terminal.) clearly shows that the verb to object can be used in reference to abstract notions or things. Even though you disagree with object being linked to disagreeing, I assure you that finding a more suitable definition will be difficult. Perhaps adding the word "oppose", as in "To oppose or disagree with[...]" might be a solution, but I advise you to take this discussion to the Tea Room before any further edits on the entry page. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Robbie I would but I don't have anyone that I can bounce the idea off. I will not make any further changes until I get more info.

I don't think you are answering my question though. The definition is this "To disagree with something or someone; especially in a Court of Law, to raise an objection. I object to the proposal to build a new airport terminal."

My question is can I disagree with a thing like a table? Please can we just start with this very simple question? I don't disagree with object being linked with disagree, I used "To disagree with something's use or someone's behavior" It is possible to disagree, I believe to disagree with a use or a behavior, which is objecting I believe. But I don't believe stating that I can disagree with a thing or something like a table is accurate.

So in summary I believe the verb to object is obviously related to being objectionable and we know that that means, bad behavior. I may even say this "I agree with the content of your argument but I object to how you delivered it as it was objectionable."

Don't worry if you could answer if I can disagree with a table and I will be happy?

Desa97 (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Desa97, but I'm siding with Equinox on this one: We define words as they are used in English by English speakers. You are entitled to your opinions, but we are not obliged to cater to your preferences. In regard to your question – yes, you can disagree with an object but more importantly it can disagree with you. It's quite common to say things along the lines of "Onions disagree with me" implying that they cause harm or unease when consumed. So I advise you to move on, just accept that things are inherently weird and that Wiktionary is descriptive, not proscriptive. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


let me tell you something, whats wrong with copying format, but look im contributing, i added the Brahui section in the ŧ page something which u didnt and i might have taken some tries BUT I DID IT OK?

im not Globins why are you blaming me for it


Hello! On 27 August, you reverted my edit in the “galėti” entry. I noticed this today I added the information again. Why did you revert my edit to begin with? I speak Lithuanian and “galėti” does, in fact, mean both “can” and “may”. 07:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

When you just write "can" without the infinitive marker "to", it becomes confusing; are you referring to the noun or the verb? Patrolling anon edits you sometimes get blinded, so I apologise for the revert which I see now was made in good faith. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree and can see why it was confusing. It looks really nice now, though! No need at all to apologise. Have a nice day! 11:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Relinn .Rossouw[edit]

I see nothing to indicate that this account is anything but a totally clueless South African 13-year-old, though the thought that this might be a bot did cross my mind. The bots try to make the user pages as generic and nondescript as possible so they can blend in. They also don't do this kind of edit. Besides, if they were a bot, deletion of the bogus user page would be the first priority.

That said, the sudden expansion of smartphone usage in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia has brought in a whole class of novice users with poor English skills who often aren't even aware they're editing a dictionary- and this seems to be Exhibit A.

I unblocked this account to avoid giving the wrong impression, not because I think there's any chance of any useful contributions. Feel free to reblock them on other grounds if you feel it's appropriate. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Glee picture[edit]

Should have been there —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You funny :-D But no, it shouldn't. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


Hello Robbie, this French woman said [ənˈɐðɚʁ] with a French R at the end, so should we remove it? 15:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

About you blocking my account without a warning for a few good-faith edits[edit]

On 5 November, you blocked my account for 24 hours based on the following: Adding formats yielding a so called Moldovan Korean category and ultimately presenting false information as to the use of some old verb forms in Romanian. Granted, I have no idea what a ”Moldovan Korean category” means, but I have a bone to pick with you over the block itself. You blocked me right away without even contacting me before, which I think was pretty indefensible and I am quite sure most administrators would agree with me on that. I have never engaged in any sort of vandalism, which you should know. I was pretty stunned to see that there are actually users who would block serious contributors like myself over such a minor infraction. My edits were all made in good faith and you went over the line by blocking my account. I do not want to feel that I have to create an account to be treated fairly here. I expect you to behave differently the next time and not use the blocking tool the way you did.

Secondly: the edits I made about the old sînt forms in Romanian are not incorrect in Moldovan from what I know. I clearly stated that they are obsolete in Romania, but they are in fact very much used in Moldova, which I pointed out. They may be obsolete according to official grammars, however, in which case I apologise for getting ahead of myself.
Thirdly: the word moldovenește also refers to the language spoken in Moldova, which is referred to as Moldovan by many citizens (although not all of them). You may have your opinion about this situation, but it is used that way and should not be removed. I have left the sînt edits be for now, but I took the liberty to revert the moldovenește edit. 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Moldavian ISO 639 code (mo an mol) were made obsolete back in November of 2008 which indicates that there is no substantial difference between Romanian and Moldavian. The country itself has Romanian as its official language so your change will possibly be reverted because it's to some extent untrue - you have to provide proof that the English lemma is used in that way and taking into consideration what I mentioned previously, you will have a hard time proving your case. In regards to you block, you made a bunch of formatting errors which created a red category called "Moldovan Korean". You did not go back to look at your edits and I was afraid that you were on a roll. We've had several anon users who have politicised lemmas related to Moldova, so I have adopted a no tolerance policy in order to spare Wiktionary unnecessary tension. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologise for blocking you. However, please take into consideration that Moldovan/Moldavian is no longer recognised as a separate language and we have discussed it enough in the past. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I appreciate your answer and apology. The thing about Moldova and the Romanian language in Moldova is that while the political situation has changed and there is a reason to get rid of the notion that there is a distinct Moldovan language, there might still be some dialectal variations. This is not the same thing as stating that there is a distinct Moldovan language, which I never did. Also, in the case of my moldovenește edit: we already know that the people of Moldova to a certain degree treat the Romanian spoken there as a distinct language and while I agree that that is wrong and should have no place here, it is still a fact that they refer to the language as moldovenește. This is the reason I think we should acknowledge it in the moldovenește entry. It is hardly about politics, but rather about practical use (because it is used by the people). This is my view. 09:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I was actually mainly referring to your change at the English entry. We have to substantiate its use in English in order to have that sense listed. To put it bluntly, these kinds of topics are prone to be debated by people holding conflicting positions, so it's better to keep a healthy distance so that they don't become problematic issues. I understand your point of view and will take it into consideration when I go through these entries later this week. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the difficulties as well. Thank you! 11:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi again! You reverted my edit on “pažinti” yesterday. As you may remember, we spoke the time you revered my edit in the “galėti” entry on 17 October. I find it difficult to understand the procedure here. I still speak Lithuanian and know for a fact that “pažinti” refers to places as well (although it has never had the same meaning as “žinoti”, which refers to information rather than being familiar with something). Would you please explain why this edit was reverted? I am open to constructive criticism if you have it. 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The revert was a simple mistake on my part - my cellphone changed orientation while scrolling and I happened to come across the rollback button when trying to put it right again. A blunder on my part which I fixed immediately. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
OK! No harm done. 11:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits by at "rakam".[edit]

I just saw that you revert an unknown editor's edit. I think that it SHOULD be included in there since Malay also has that word (I'm Malaysian, so, I know that it deserves to be mentioned). Emotioness Expression (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the validity of the term in Malay. It was just so poorly formatted - nothing was correct, not even the header. If you want to readd it, please use proper formatting and headers. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Rollback on 1-2-3 block[edit]

I noticed you reverted someone's addition of an illustrative image to 1-2-3 block. I have undone your edit because I believe the edit was well-intended and may be helpful to readers as it would help the reader better visualize the definition given for the term. Inner Focus (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It was a fast revert based on the incorrect placement of the image and superfluous sections. I don't object to adding an image, however, it should be formatted properly. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: later[edit]

If there's some relevant nexus between "later" and "building materials" I'd love to hear about it. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the Latin section, Latin later is defined as "brick; tile". Categories may be relevant to only one of the language sections, but if you want to categorize one of the parts, you have to categorize the whole page. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz:I'm pretty sure I thanked you for the edit summary, but I didn't see this post until now. So, either thanks, or thanks again for the info as well as for your notice of the intended humor in things that nonetheless go wrong. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Chuck summarised it perfectly. Must say that I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't know that already – I advise you to take some time to familiarise yourself with Wiktionary's guidelines, especially how categories are added. Any questionable edits on your part will be reverted and I'm not the kind of admin to shy away from blocking users for obstruction, regardless how knowledgeable they come off as. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. FYI: I'm one who relishes valid criticism yet I eschew not only interpolations of others' motives but also assessments of their range of knowledge. And I'm not averse to being blocked for harassment (versus bad taste) or defamatory remarks (versus sardonic or otherwise lame humor). Perhaps I should make a concerted effort to gauge others' familiarity with satire and self-deprecation. Anyway, I apologize to you, Ron Sheppard: Ron, if you're a user here, I hope my frivolous mention of your publicly noticed serial marriages hasn't exposed you to any additional scorn. And Robbie, if my quirks of humor get me blocked by an administrator who wants to give me some comeuppance upon reading some obstructionist quality into the text of my edits or posts, please back me up. Cheers, and love all 'round. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(Un)fortunately, a bad sense of humour and improper use of satire are apparently not blockable offences. Your comment directed towards Equinox was for me neither amusing nor becoming a person of your (purported) stature. Then again, boomer humour was never really my cup of tea. Did I act rashly when I blocked you? Possibly, Chuck thought so and I defer to him – I respect his decision. However, your tone and incessant diatribe is edging you ever so close to the cliff of being blocked, by me or any other admin growing increasingly tired of having to read your verbose essays du jour addressing your Wiktionary grievances. Adopt a more relaxed tone, and everything will be smooth sailing. Thanks, and please don't spread "love all 'round" cause of quarantine and lockdown. Stay safe! ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a difficult decision, but in the end, I had to consider motive and the extreme unlikeliness of the purported identity. @Kent Dominic Privacy is important. Even pretending to doxx someone is a very bad idea. This may be a game to you, but there are those of us who have to wrestle with such issues all the time. As a checkuser, I can see the IP address and the browser information shared with Wikimedia servers for every edit in the past 90 days. I sometimes accidentally learn things in the course of an investigation that the privacy policy requires me to keep to myself. I don't find jokes about such things very funny. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Duly noted and understood. FYI, I'm likely to doxx myself here next year. I'd like my commercial readers to have the benefit of checking all the linguistic rants I've made here and at Wikipedia. So, I'm invested in keeping my rants and occasional put-downs clean but edgy. Sometimes too edgy, maybe. (Getting blocked and unblocked validates my intent to come as close to that line as possible when warranted.) Thanks all the same. --Kent Dominic (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I appreciate your tolerance regarding the mock items I listed under the "requests for deletion topic" on your discussion page. Somehow I knew you wouldn't be personally offended. The mocking truly is geared at anyone who can't see the inconsistencies that swirl around a myopic perspective re. POS and linguistic taxonomies. --Kent Dominic (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Rollback on vrabie[edit]

My edit to the etymology section replaced "*vorbъ" (inexistent page) with "Proto-Slavic *vorbь", a page that explicitely lists "vrabie" under "Descendants". —⁠This unsigned comment was added by MerryXIV (talkcontribs).

Your edit created the automatic category "Serbo-Croatian terms derived from Proto-Slavic" which is entirely incorrect for a Romanian entry. Please be more careful and make sure to use the proper language code. We can't clean up every edit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Re. hear, hear[edit]

Hey Robbie, I’ll forever deny being obstructionist, but I readily admit being too lazy to invest the time needed to figure out proper protocols regarding the change indicated here. If you’re interested in doing it yourself in a way that avoids ruffling feathers, have at it. Cheers. --Kent Dominic (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The suggested changes make a pretty straightforward definition exaggeratedly complicated and therefore deemed by me as meaningless. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up in the Tea Room. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
May I respectfully disagree about it being meaningless without heeding your suggestion regarding the Tea Room? My laziness supersedes my linguistic affinities in this case.
P.S. Please pardon the self-deprecation; indeed I'm less lazy than I am interested in ultimately maintaining the intellectual property rights concerning my own lexicon's entry for "hear, hear." --Kent Dominic (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Step off meaning #3[edit]

It goes without saying that the words in an idiom have their ordinary meanings when not used idiomatically. 19:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It is still pointed out when the literal meaning is as common as this. It'd be confusing for people using this dictionary if step off did not have the meaning you insist on removing. — surjection??⟩ 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Even a literal sense is useful if it helps distinguish the idiomatic from the literal. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


You reverted one edit by 2601:644:100:9F20:F83F:3CFD:278D:49C9. There are several more unnecessary additions of use examples involving a guy named Jim. Not vandalism taken one at a time, but odd. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was on the fence about deleting them. I decided to keep them since they seemed pretty harmless. Do you think they should be deleted? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed or altered some, and replaced one with a genuine quotation. Maybe the rest should be edited too. It feels like in combination they might be about a real Jim. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The edit to ask shows a deficiency in the definitions. We don't have a sense matching the added ux. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your help. I'll take a look tomorrow and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)